Re: [squid-users] Percentege cache

On 09/04/11 02:49, igor rocha wrote:
> ?
>
> 2011/4/8 igor rocha<igorlogos_at_gmail.com>:
>> Hello,
>> I know that does not formulate the right question, I am Brazilian and
>> not mastered English well, but talk about commonly used metrics to
>> measure the effectiveness of the cache and the amount of bandwidth
>> saved is hit ratio, defined as the percentage of requests that are
>> satisfied by the proxy as cache hits.Show me the average percentage of
>> index pages that are not cached,a paper.
>>
>> understand?

Ah. I think so.

I'm not aware of any papers on that. It is highly variable between networks.
  We do have two general "rule-of-thumbs";
  * that reverse-proxy (CDN) see hit ratios usually around 80%-99% for a
website.
  * that forward-proxy (ISP) see hit rations between 25% and 45%.

with variance outside of those ranges for older Squid versions and
poorly written websites.

This is general-knowledge built up from years of small talks with people
looking at and discussion of their cache ratios. Nothing published exactly.

We have in recent years attempted to collects statistics on these. Which
can be found at http://wiki.squid-cache.org/KnowledgeBase/Benchmarks
along with the methodology used for collection.

Amos

>> 2011/4/8 Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 08/04/11 02:48, igor rocha wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Gentlemen,
>>>> could anyone tell me what percentage of sites that are required for
>>>> the cache and actually go into the cache, can be an article that
>>>> talksabout it, something that helps me to have concrete statistical
>>>> data.
>>>
>>> Please explain your meaning of "required for the cache".
>>>
>>> 100% of squid cacheable sites get cached. Admin often force>100% to be
>>> cached.
>>>
>>> I suspect you mean something else though.
>>>
>>> Amos
>>> --
>>> Please be using
>>> Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.12
>>> Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.6
>>>
>>

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.12
   Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.6